Gordon Brown: In the last six months, the dollar has fallen by 6 per cent. against the pound. At the same time, the euro rose by 5 per cent. against the pound. Our objective throughout is stability and the maintenance of economic growth. During our presidency of the G7 and G8 next year, our objective will be that each continent makes its contribution to the sustained growth of the world economy.

David Taylor: In the mid-1980s closing the twin fiscal and current account gaps in the United States, which at that stage were running at about 3 per cent. of gross domestic product, was associated with a 30 per cent. fall in the dollar when measured on a trade-weighted basis. Does my right hon. Friend agree that with those two deficits now running at about 5 per cent., the chief economist at the Bank of England was right to flag up further sizeable falls in the dollar recently? What will my right hon. Friend do about that prospect when he talks to the American Administration?

Paul Boateng: The plans are flexible and have been recognised as such by all the charities working in this sector. What has really introduced flexibility into the market—the facts speak for themselves—is that 525,000 child care places have been created as a result of this Government's policy since we came to office. The real flexibility is provided by having a child care policy. The Tories never had one and the result was an inflexible and rigid labour market and a lack of choice for hard-pressed, hard-working parents.

Michael Fallon: Is not the reason that Ministers refuse to rule out an increase in national insurance contributions, as they have ruled out increases in VAT on food and children's clothing, that if one votes Labour at the next election, national insurance is the tax most likely to be increased in the next Parliament, just as the Government increased it in this Parliament?

Gordon Brown: Almost all the major economies, including France and Switzerland, which are gold holders, have been selling gold recently, with the exception of the US and Germany. The mistake that we made as a country was not rebalancing our reserves earlier, in the 1980s and 1990s. When we came into power, we made a decision to do what it had been advised we should do for a long time. We made the right decision to have the right balance of reserves, including holding dollars, euros and yen. The hon. Gentleman will not like it, but the value of our euro holdings has gone up, as a result of the euro going up by 14 per cent.

Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that millions of families in this country would not agree that the investment in education over the past eight years has been a waste of public expenditure—especially those who have benefited from free nursery school education, which, as all the research shows, represents very good investment. Much of the investment has been well received and useful, but there is not necessarily a relationship between more money and better results, with one exception: higher education. Our expenditure on higher education has been less generous than in other areas. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if we are to have an internationally competitive economy, we must invest more in higher education, and soon?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members want to be called to ask a supplementary question, and this is a serious matter for many communities and their regiments. I do not want the Secretary of State to be barracked. He has been asked to answer questions, and he will do so. The House should remember that I can stop a statement at any time. I therefore remind those Members who are heckling, of my position: I will not allow the Secretary of State to be barracked in any way.

Chris McCafferty: On behalf of my constituents in Calder Valley and those in Halifax—especially those currently serving in the Duke of Wellington Regiment in Iraq—may I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to form a Yorkshire regiment from the three current regiments? Although the Dukes are currently in Basra, they are very aware of the battle raging at home over their future and those of other regiments, which has made matters extremely difficult for them as they serve in an area of conflict. My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct to say that it is important that the Army be structured and equipped in such a way that it is flexible and can deploy rapidly, but I am very pleased that he has found a way of enabling that to happen without throwing out the baby with the bath water, allowing the Duke of Wellington Regiment's links and traditions to remain.

Geoff Hoon: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I had the privilege not only of meeting members of the Black Watch in Basra last week, but of meeting the Lord Provost of Dundee beforehand. I was grateful to him for his travelling to London to make his views known, and they are clear. He wants to preserve the best elements and the identity of the traditional regiments in Scotland, and he accepted the need for the re-organisation that we propose. We are re-organising to face the challenges of the 21st century, while having regard to the importance of regimental identities. That is the best way to proceed.

Oliver Heald: I join in the sentiments that the Leader of the House has just expressed, and I wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Leader, Members on both sides and all who work here a very happy Christmas.
	Has the Leader of the House read early-day motion 404?
	[That this House expresses its deep concern that during the debate on consideration of the Mental Capacity Bill on 14th December, a document relating to and important to the debate was not made available by Ministers to honourable Members in all parts of the House, but only to Labour honourable Members, namely a letter from the Lord Chancellor to the Archbishop of Cardiff; considers that it is a matter of constitutional importance that all relevant documents referred to by Ministers in the House should be made available to all honourable Members; notes the remarks of the Lord Chancellor on the Today programme of 15th December that the correspondence took place at around lunchtime and was sent straight down to the Commons and distributed around the Commons; further notes that despite these remarks the letter from the Lord Chancellor was not available in the Vote Office at 3.45 p.m.; applauds the ruling of Mr Deputy Speaker that this should not happen again; and calls on the Leader of the House to make a statement giving such an assurance on behalf of the Government.]
	The Leader of the House must understand how annoyed hon. Members were by the shambles that led to only Labour Members seeing the important letter from the Lord Chancellor. The rest of us, and even some on the Labour Benches, were left trying to make out its contents from the rather difficult remarks of the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs.
	As was made clear from the Chair, we should all receive the same information for a debate. Will the Leader of the House make sure that that happens in future? Will he also ensure that if amendments come from the other place, adequate time will be allowed for a full debate on a particularly sensitive Bill?
	Has any progress yet been made in arranging the debate for which I have been asking on Foreign Affairs so that we can discuss the situation in Africa and the middle east? The Leader of the House will know from this morning's Law Lords' judgment that it has been declared that under the provisions of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 the detention of prisoners at Belmarsh is illegal. Given that the Government have always insisted that that imprisonment was perfectly all right legally, can we have a statement in which the advice given to Ministers and the statements of Ministers are explained? Clearly, the situation is worrying.
	The Gambling Bill is approaching its final day in Committee. The Government have today decided to revise the basis of the Bill completely. Can the Leader of the House assure us that we will have at least two days on report to consider the Bill now proposed?
	In the summer, I criticised the Leader of the House for changing guidance to allow Ministers to avoid answering written questions by replying that there was no time to answer before prorogation. Ministers have used that, but can he say why, according to the Library, so many of his colleagues have gone a stage further and cannot even be bothered to answer the questions at all? A whopping 306 written questions went totally unanswered in the last Session. Why?
	When will the Leader of the House change Standing Orders to allow the European Scrutiny Committee to sit in public? The Committee asked for that a year ago, and it would provide an early-warning system for excessive European regulation. Why is the Leader of the House dragging his heels on that?

Douglas Hogg: May I revert to the question of the Lords ruling on the detainees in HMP Belmarsh? The Leader of the House will know that I and many others have been pressing on that matter for many months now and asserting that their detention was unlawful. Next week, may we have a full debate or a full statement from the Home Secretary? He has apparently asserted in a written statement that he will not comply with the judgment of the House of Lords and that he will continue to detain those people, notwithstanding the fact that that is unlawful. That is surely a disgrace and the House needs to have the opportunity to determine why the Home Secretary is prepared to defy the House of Lords.

Bob Spink: I cannot allow the season to pass without personally wishing the Leader of the House a very happy Christmas. May we have a ministerial statement in the House that Little Haven hospice in my constituency will receive an increase in its statutory funding from the miserly 1.8 per cent. it currently receives to 5 per cent. from next year? That will give the people who sadly depend on the hospice services a happier Christmas, and will provide a good Christmas to the wonderful staff who work in all our hospices.

Roy Beggs: Yesterday, two business men in Northern Ireland, one from Keady in County Armagh and the other from Dungannon in County Tyrone, suspected of smuggling alcohol worth millions of pounds, had £300,000-worth of their assets frozen by the Assets Recovery Agency. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate in the House so that we can consider whether our law enforcement agencies in Northern Ireland are sufficiently funded to go after the racketeering and smuggling godfathers in Northern Ireland? The media are at pains to stress the fact that neither of those business men had links with paramilitary organisations, but it is na-ve to think that they could carry on their operations without support from such organisations.

Brian Iddon: Because the debate on Tuesday of new clause 1 of the Mental Capacity Bill ended in utter confusion and because the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) hinted that the Government would submit a further amendment to the House, would not it be right and proper for a statement to be made—even a written statement—next week, before Christmas, so that we can consider the matter before debate begins in the other place?

Theresa May: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, in answers to questions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer falsely claimed that it was the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition to scrap Sure Start. It is not Conservative party policy to scrap Sure Start; it is Conservative party policy to keep Sure Starts, as is well known by Ministers. May I seek your guidance on how I may ensure in future that neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor other Ministers misleads the House or uses the House to make false claims about the policies of Her Majesty's Opposition?

SECTION 5 OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1993

Clause 1
	 — 
	School travel schemes

John Pugh: I certainly will say that such amendments are pleasing, but I also say that there is not a good case for the Minister's putting such provisions in the Bill. We must wonder why they are marginalised in a prospectus.
	In any case, having a prospectus is a model for getting difficult legislation through the House. Although I am not making an accusation about the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), it is a way of getting legislation past more gullible Back Benchers. Although I believe that the Minister has been genuine in insisting that there should be consultation, I would be happier if such a provision were included in the Bill.

Stephen Twigg: First, I thank the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) for his kind remarks about my appointment—I will not be drawn into discussions about the number of twigs on the ministerial tree. I am delighted to welcome the new Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp).
	On amendment No. 6, the issue was raised in Committee, where I explained that I do not think it desirable or practical for LEAs to propose joint schemes. We considered allowing LEAs to make joint applications to the Secretary State and the National Assembly for Wales when we first drafted the Bill. We reconsidered our initial decision following public consultation, when a number of LEAs suggested that they would like to make joint applications, although they foresaw that groups of more than two authorities might run joint schemes, particularly in some of our larger urban areas, for the reasons referred to by the hon. Member for Fareham.
	We felt that there are a number of problems with that approach, some of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) when he moved the amendment. In practice, good schemes could fail or suffer delays if one authority failed to carry out an adequate local consultation. Secondly, if one LEA wanted to make small changes to a joint scheme, every participating LEA would have to carry out a consultation, which could turn out to be costly and unnecessary. Thirdly, one LEA might decide to revoke a scheme, but another might want to continue with that scheme because it felt that the scheme was working well, which would pose practical difficulties.
	The Bill is already sufficiently flexible to allow two or more LEAs to come to us with schemes that they have developed in consultation with each other, and London may well provide a good opportunity to do that for the reasons set out by the hon. Member for Fareham. Such schemes might dovetail, although each LEA would need to submit its own separate scheme for approval. Indeed, we understand that some LEAs are already considering that approach, which we encourage.
	I agree with hon. Members that collaboration makes a good deal of sense where cross-boundary issues must be addressed. However, I hope that they agree that the drawbacks of joint schemes outweigh their advantages. We will continue to encourage authorities to make their own applications in which they can explain how their scheme relates to others and ask for joint consideration, where appropriate. We are convinced that that approach offers the joined-up dimension sought by amendment No. 6.
	Before I address amendments Nos. 7 and 12, I shall respond to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch). It is disappointing to hear about a failure to consult. When school transport changes are proposed, whether they are part of the Bill or whether they are broader changes, it is vital that consultation occurs. The particular example from Herefordshire demonstrates the importance of innovative approaches. At the moment, an innovative approach enables students who might not qualify for free transport to use buses that take children to denominational schools. With the hon. Gentleman's leadership at a local level, I encourage Herefordshire LEA to reconsider the matter and, perhaps more important, fully to consult parents and others in Herefordshire on the proposals.
	Amendment No. 7 would require LEAs to consult with admissions bodies and representatives of denominational schools and would prevent a scheme from being made until those consultations have taken place. Amendment No. 12 would give the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales powers to make regulations specifying the consultation process that LEAs must undertake before making a scheme application. The regulations could also provide a list of statutory consultees.
	I agree with the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) that a full consultation process is vital to underpin any applications as part of the legislation. I also agree with the comments made on both sides of the House that a number of key consultees must be included in the consultation process in every authority. A number of consultees, including the Education and Skills Committee, have suggested a number of additional stakeholders who should be included in the section in the prospectus on local consultation. During recent scrutiny in the House, we made further additions in response to the most helpful suggestions made by members of the Committee. I hope that the list of consultees now in the prospectus is fully comprehensive, but I remain receptive to any further suggestions.
	The list includes school governors, including governors of special schools where pupils in the authority are placed; teacher association representatives at the local level; parents and prospective parents; the schools forum; the admissions forum; bodies representing any denominations with schools in the area; transport operators; further education; as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) rightly stressed, groups representing parents with children with special educational needs and/or disabilities; organisations with an interest in pupil safety, such as BUSK—Belt Up School Kids—and Stuart's Campaign; and any other partners with a material interest in school travel schemes, such as passenger transport executives and Transport for London. Admissions bodies and representatives of denominational schools—the subject of amendment No. 7—are included in the list, and rightly so.
	The National Assembly for Wales will be responsible for issuing the prospectus in Wales and will conduct a wide-ranging consultation with all interested parties, including admissions bodies and representatives of denominational schools. In Committee, I explained that the prospectus is binding on scheme authorities and that we will not approve pilots that have not had adequate consultation. We are responding to those and separate concerns of Committee members through amendment No. 26, which will place the prospectus on a statutory footing. I hope that that will be sufficient to allay the concern that Members have expressed today that pilots could be put in place without adequate consultation.

John Gummer: I perfectly understand the Minister, but as he is so comprehensive in what he is able to do, I wonder whether he has been the victim of his civil servants: I remember them well. I suspect that he probably wanted to put in the proposed change, but his civil servants said to him: "Better not, Minister—better leave it like this." I had not thought that he was susceptible to that, and I hope that he will not be so today, but will think again. It is better to do it, then all worries are allayed.

Phil Willis: This is a very important issue, because the status of the prospectus has that status only with this Minister at this particular time. No Minister, including one of a Government of a different complexion, could write a prospectus that was completely contrary to the spirit of this one, and Parliament would have absolutely no say in that. There is enough power for the Secretary of State to make those agreements on his or her own say. That is a dangerous precedent, because if it is introduced for this Bill it could be used for any other piece of social legislation that Ministers wish to introduce in future. Will the Minister consider whether the prospectus should be backed up by a clear set of statutory instruments, which obviously cannot be brought in today, but could be committed to in another place?

Stephen Twigg: The hon. Gentleman's wants to probe the intention for independent schools and academies. The intention of the amendment appears to be to achieve two things: first, to bring independent schools and academies into the scope of school travel schemes and, secondly, to ensure that transport can be provided to those establishments at no net cost to the scheme authority—the LEA. I shall deal with the points in turn.
	First, I want to assure hon. Members that independent schools and academies must already be included in school travel schemes. Paragraph 2(l)(a) of proposed new schedule 35B requires an authority to set out travel arrangements to and from schools. "Schools" is the term used. Section 4 of the Education Act 1996 defines schools as any institutions outside the further education and higher education sectors that provide primary and/or secondary education. The term therefore encompasses maintained and independent schools. Academies are classified for legal purposes as independent schools. Although they are independent, LEAs remain responsible for making travel arrangements for their pupils to ensure that they can get to school.
	Many areas in England have a substantial proportion of pupils attending independent schools. The national average is 7 per cent, not including academies. If LEAs with a high level of independent education in their geographical area are to make a difference to the amount of traffic on the school run, constructive engagement with the independent sector is crucial, as the hon. Gentleman said.
	Paragraph 13 of the prospectus states that we expect LEAs to consider travel patterns of pupils in independent schools in their area and examine whether there is scope for making joint arrangements that benefit pupils in both sectors.
	The amendment refers to cost and we believe that that would make a material change to the Bill. The amendment envisages that arrangements for pupils who attend independent schools, including academies, could be made only at no net cost to the scheme authority. I fear that such a provision could have some unfortunate—and, I am sure, unintended—consequences for academies and their pupils. As I have explained, LEAs remain responsible for providing transport for pupils who travel to and from academies and they must ensure that transport is provided when pupils live more than three miles away and the academy is their nearest school.
	When an academy provides education for pupils who are drawn from a wide area, the cost per pupil can be high—£600 or more annually per pupil without special educational needs and considerably more for those who have special educational needs. Providing transport at no net cost to the scheme authority would probably require charges to be set at an unaffordable level. It would mean parents of pupils without SEN paying a substantial subsidy to cover the cost of transport for pupils with SEN. I am sure that parents and others would be unhappy with such an arrangement. I would anticipate that parents of pupils who attended academies would be so unhappy that the local consultation that scheme authorities undertake before the scheme started would show overwhelming opposition to such proposals. That, together with potential charges set at exceptionally high levels for pupils at academies, would mean that the scheme proposals that the amendment constrain are unlikely to be acceptable to the Secretary of State or to many parents.

John Pugh: I thank the Minister for that clarification. We need to think through the implications of his comments. They are news to some hon. Members. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Amendment proposed: No. 12, in page 2, line 12 [Clause 1], at end insert—
	2A   (l)   Scheme authorities shall, prior to the submission of a proposed school travelscheme to the appropriate national authority, undertake a consultation process in accordance with regulations made by—
	(a)   in England, the Secretary of State, and
	(b)   in Wales, the Assembly for Wales.
	(2)   Regulations under subparagraphs (l)(a) or (b) may, in particular, include a list of statutory consultees to be asked for comments on the proposed scheme and provide for the nature of the consultation process.
	(3)   Power to make regulations under subparagraph (1) is exercisable by statutory instrument.
	(4)   Regulations under subparagraph (l)(a) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.—[Mr. Hoban.]

Phil Willis: So far we have tried to identify the parameters of imaginative solutions. I do not think that making relatively cheap party-political points is the right approach, and I will not become involved in it.
	The prospectus is an interesting document. I do not want to rehearse the argument that we produced during our debate on the last group of amendments, but I think that the usefulness of a prospectus without a statutory instrument will be difficult to sustain. I expect that the other place will return to that issue.
	Is the Minister serious about the commitments made in the prospectus's clauses on charging? Clause 29 states:
	"Any charges must be affordable and pitched at a level that does not produce an increase in car journeys to school."
	What does that mean? How on earth are we supposed to interpret that in a meaningful way that could not be challenged? Clause 30 states:
	"There is a particularly strong case for providing protection from charges to the fourth or subsequent child of compulsory school age in a household, as these comprise less than 1 per cent. of the pupil population."
	Our amendment No. 13 does exactly that. If the Minister has accepted the reality of that case, why can he not accept our amendment and thereby include such a provision in the Bill?
	I turn to children with special educational needs and disabilities. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale)—he is no longer in his place—had to say about the SEN consortium, but the reality is that it does not glowingly endorse what the Minister is seeking to do through the prospectus. The consortium rightly says that the prospectus is a huge step forward compared with the situation when the Bill was first considered. I compliment the Minister in that regard, but there remains a real issue. What do we do about children with special educational needs who, technically, fall outside the scope of the regulations because they can walk, but who need an escort in order to walk and are not entitled to an escort in a taxi?
	Although I support the policy of reducing the number of statements, such a reduction gives rise to a problem. I would love us to reach the point where SEN becomes a normal part of school life, without having to single out kids through special statements. But without such statements, those children will not get the SEN and disability rights protection that this legislation provides. I hope that the Minister can deal with that issue.
	Parents of children with special educational needs have real fears about bullying on the school bus run. Indeed, two parents came to see me in my constituency surgery last week to discuss this issue, with which the prospectus does not deal. There are no escorts on school buses, and unless we are going to provide them to protect such children, the problem will remain. Children with dyspraxia, autism, or sensory or physical impairments will find it difficult to deal with such situations.
	Amendment No. 9 would retain the current arrangements as a benchmark for any new legislation. Amendment No. 10 deals with children who live in rural areas, an issue on which I hope the Minister can satisfy us. On reading the Hansard account of our proceedings in Committee and the Bill's accompanying guidance, there is no doubt that this is urban legislation. The needs of children in rural communities have got be considered carefully, and I hope that the Minister will accept amendment No. 10, which would ensure that parents and children in rural areas are not discriminated against.
	I appreciate that amendment No. 11 deals with a difficult issue, which was considered in some detail in Committee. The Government claim that human rights legislation does not allow discrimination in respect of children who attend denominational schools, but it also says that parents should have the right to choose a school according to their religious beliefs. Indeed, through the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, the Government extended the right of other faith groups to have their own schools. It is therefore clear that this is an issue that must be deal with.
	Two other aspects should be mentioned. In responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), the Minister mentioned travel arrangements for independent schools and academies. If it is Government policy to be able to choose an academy and the nearest academy is beyond the nearest school, does it not contravene and work against the arrangements made for school transport in the Bill? Secondly, if a parent chooses a specialist school situated well beyond the local school, will there be an entitlement to free travel arrangements to it?
	Amendment No. 11 invites the Minister to address that problem. It deals with the circumstances where a choice of faith school is beyond the local school in the light of the fact that Government policy sometimes encourages parents to choose schools for their children that are beyond the local school. There is a real conflict in Government policy here. On the one hand, the Government offer greater choice, but on the other hand, they propose legislation that encourages children to go to the local school. I hope that the House will support my amendments.

Mark Hoban: This important group of amendments tackles some of the issues at the heart of the Bill, particularly charging. On Second Reading and in Committee, we made it clear that the introduction of charging for those who live more than two or three miles from their primary or secondary school is a move away from the principle set out in the Education Act 1944 and a significant move away from the provision of free education.
	Amendment No. 1, which I tabled, is an attempt to reinstate the status quo, to ensure that children who live more than two miles away from their primary school and those who live more than three miles away from their secondary school will still receive free transport. It would not prevent LEAs from trying to tackle congestion relating to children who live less than two miles away from their primary school or less than three miles away from their secondary school; it would allow LEAs the freedom to do so.
	We need to recognise the fact that, when we discussed the issue in Committee, we talked about a charge of £1 a day for pupils. For a family with one child, that is about £200 during a school year, but it does not take much for the figures to multiply, depending on the number of children. A family with four children could face a bill of £800 year for sending their children to school. That is an expensive addition to housekeeping costs for many hard-working families. We must also remember that the cut-off for free school transport for protected children is fairly low, and is set at an income of about £13,000—the same as the entitlement for free school meals. In many constituencies, the average income is £24,000. At the same time, however, the Government have introduced means-tested benefits through various tax credit and child care schemes from which families who earn up to £59,000 a year can benefit. It is inconsistent to give money through some child tax credit schemes to families earning £59,000 a year while taking it away from families who may earn only a little more than £13,000 a year. We must therefore be consistent in the way in which we tackle need and people's ability to pay.
	Amendment No. 13 would provide clarity about concessionary fares in the documents produced by the scheme authority. It would cover low-income families, who, while they may receive more than £14,000 a year, have below average earnings for the area. It would also cover large families, whom we discussed at an earlier stage. The scheme prospectus has been strengthened, for which I am grateful, but we need to make sure that when authorities introduce a scheme, particularly when the scheme is under consultation, they make their concessionary policies clear to families in the area. If they do not wish to extend a concessionary scheme to certain families, they should be transparent and explain why there are not prepared to do so.
	Amendment No. 14 tackles the issue of special educational needs, which dominated a large part of our discussions in Committee. Indeed, it dominated Second Reading, when the previous Secretary of State gave a commitment to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), who, in connection with children with special educational needs, asked whether he was
	"prepared to guarantee, by amendment to the Bill, that no parent of such a child who currently has access to free school transport will lose that access?"
	The right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) said:
	"On the hon. Gentleman's argument concerning fundamental rights—the rights of the parent who has a child with a statement—I can give him the assurance that he seeks. If we can provide greater clarity on that issue in Committee, I am perfectly happy to go down that route."—[Official Report, 28 October 2004; Vol. 425, c. 1609.]
	I am sure that, like me, hon. Members will have interpreted that to mean that a provision would be included in the Bill that, at the very least, would protect children with a statement of special educational needs. Disappointingly, that clarification was not made in any of the Government amendments tabled on Tuesday, but the other place will have an opportunity to discuss the issue. If children have special educational needs, their parents should not be penalised through additional transport costs.
	Amendment No. 14 seeks to include children with SEN in the definition of protected children, and identifies two separate categories. The first is relatively straightforward and includes children with SEN who attend the nearest suitable school. We dealt with the second category in Committee, and it is covered by paragraph (ii)(b) of the amendment. If parents choose to send a child with SEN to a school that is not the nearest suitable one, is the scheme authority required to pay their transport costs? The amendment says that it will do so if it has agreed that the child should be registered with that school. It would therefore cover statemented children and, given that the Government are trying to encourage local authorities to move away from statements, it would also cover children whose parents have reached an agreement with the LEA that a particular school, albeit not the nearest one, is the right one for them. A school, for example, may a have a special unit for children with autism or hearing problems. It may not be the nearest school, but the local authority may have agreed with the parents that it is the right school, so the child should be considered a protected child, and the local authority should pay transport costs. That is important protection for children with SEN. Although the Special Educational Consortium has welcomed the strengthening of the prospectus and the comments about the transport costs of children with SEN, it, too, wants to see some of the protections on which the Minister has given assurances in the Bill, so that they are available as a statutory right, are enshrined in legislation and cannot be taken away without further primary legislation.
	The definition of "mobility" in the prospectus is important. It relates not only to children who have problems with walking, but to children who, by the nature of their condition, would find travelling on a school bus a problem. When the Bill was in Committee, the Special Educational Consortium—if was not the Special Educational Consortium, it was the National Autistic Society—pointed out the problems when autistic children travel on school buses. Such children may have problems that prevent them from travelling on school buses, and as a consequence parents may incur additional costs. I am concerned that the definition of mobility is not sufficiently broad and detailed to cover those needs.
	Denominational schools are important and were discussed on a number of occasions in Committee. At the moment, a discretionary scheme operates, and hon. Members have outlined those authorities that have sought to restrict or withdraw support for denominational transport and the problems that that causes.
	Returning to the guidance that was published 10 years ago, a Department for Education and Skills circular states:
	"many LEAs exercise the discretion afforded by Section 55"
	of the Education Act 1944
	"to provide free transport or assistance with fares for pupils or students who attend the nearest school or college of their parent's religious denomination, even though they could have attended a non-denominational institution nearer home".
	Paragraph 31 of that circular adds:
	"the Secretary of State hops that LEAs will continue to think it right not to disturb well established arrangements of the kind referred to in paragraph 29".
	That guidance was meant to reinforce the need to continue discretionary transport schemes, but over the past 10 years, it has been progressively ignored.
	The Bill does not turn the clock back. It reiterates the guidance, but it does not provide any greater statutory protection for children who attend denominational schools. That raises the question of the power of guidance to continue to inform decisions taken by LEAs on school transport, which we touched on in the previous group of amendments. If the guidance has been progressively ignored, the prospectus, in which the Minister places great confidence, could equally become progressively ignored over the course of the next 10 years. The guidance on SEN, concessionary fares and the problems of rurality, large families and families on low income can again be progressively ignored. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) rightly pointed out the need for statutory protection on concessionary fares.
	It is important that greater protection is included in the Bill for groups who look to concessionary fares. We should recognise that the transport costs of children with SEN should be properly covered by any scheme rules. Although the guidance in the prospectus is welcome, it is not sufficient in itself and should be in the Bill. Above all, amendment No. 1, which would reinstate the status quo, is an important measure to protect free school transport—a principle that has underpinned education for the past 60 years. With your leave, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall seek to divide the House on amendment No. 1 later.

Stephen Twigg: I agree that this group of amendments covers the set of issues that is at the heart of the Bill.
	I shall deal with some general points that right hon. and hon. Members raised during the debate, then discuss each of the amendments in turn.
	The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) rightly reminded us of the need to place this issue in a much broader context. I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal that it is one component among several in promoting health education and healthy living. The obesity issues to which he referred, including the quality of school meals and teaching children about food as part of the curriculum, are important, but equally important are physical activity, including PE and sport in schools, which we discussed earlier this week, and the issues involved in the Bill.
	I strongly agree that part of the purpose of the schemes in pilot areas will be to encourage, where suitable, more walking to school. Walking to school involves a set of issues to do with safety and security. One of the reasons why some parents do not want their children to walk to school nowadays, yet might have contemplated it 20 or 40 years ago, is the fear of what might happen in terms of criminal activity, attacks on the children and so forth. Projects such as walking buses that are pursued as part of safer routes to school programmes are to be encouraged, and I hope that they will be developed under the pilots.
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough quoted the figure of £2 billion. It is worth taking the opportunity to remind the House that that is a global sum—it is not just for schools and health, but includes all concessionary travel, such as that for the elderly and disabled, and fuel duty rebates. The figure for education is about £600,000. That is still a sizeable amount of money, and I agree that it provides us with an opportunity to achieve a bigger impact. The underlying purpose of the Bill—I acknowledge and welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for that, even though he may disagree with the way in which we are proceeding—is not to cut that money. We are saying not "Let's spend less on school transport", but "There is a lot of money in the system and we want to ensure that it is spent as effectively as possible."
	The hon. Gentleman, inadvertently I think, set out a good argument for what we are trying to do when he cited the example of parents having a preference for, say, a specialist school or an academy. As he knows, the entitlement does not exist under the present system unless that specialist school or academy is the nearest suitable school. One of the possibilities of the Bill is that a local authority in a pilot area might decide to provide transport on a concessionary basis for pupils going to those schools, who currently may not benefit from it. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) gave a good example of how scheme authorities could respond to the concern that he raised.
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said that this is an urban Bill. I would dispute that. In Northumberland, an example of a rural area that was cited on Second Reading and in Committee, only 16 per cent. of pupils travel more than 3 miles to school. The Bill has potential benefits even in a very sparsely populated local authority area such as that.

Mark Hoban: I am sure the Minister is aware that that data are already collected by the Government, and are available through the Office for National Statistics.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
	Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 2004

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair at this point. The hon. Gentleman has now got it on the record, but this is timed business and we must press on.